|
Title: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 14, 2012, 12:28:59 PM In case any one has any questions or comments... I have proposed the first legislation- one which I do not support but which Polnut asked to be put forward and I believe we need to be doing somethign so I sponsored it
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: ZuWo on March 15, 2012, 03:08:57 AM It's good that you introduced that bill because a debate on this question is necessary. I hope the bill will be rejected.
Atlasia does not need a state-dependent national broadcaster which competes with private broadcasters. A national broadcaster may very well evolve into a propaganda outlet for the government, even if the bill says the government does not have a direct influence on the programmes that are broadcast. Why is that? Because that national broadcaster is wholly dependent on tax money which is levied by the Federal Government. Do you really expect such a national broadcaster to regularly adopt a critical stance towards activities of the Federal Government when its mere existence depends on the Federal Government? In fact, the new national broadcaster would be very dependent on the Federal Government. Secondly, we should not burden our people with yet another tax. Atlasians struggle to make ends meet, so it is a matter of principle to oppose new taxes. Mr. President, Atlasians need to have more money in their pockets, not less. Finally, a state-dependent national broadcaster has nearly unlimited resources - more resources than private broadcasters. Indeed, this may eventually force some private broadcasters to shut down. Should it be the government's priority to squeeze private employers out of the market? I doubt it! Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 15, 2012, 11:16:33 AM ZuWo- thank you for your comments and I want to tell you that I agree with every comment you have made and I will strongly oppose the bill I put forward. I put the bill forward because ZuWo had asked a Senator to and I saw no bill had been proposed since February... so I stepped up and put it on the docket. I told the President that I will be opposing it- however I believe we need to debate SOMETHING...
I will be submitting a bill more in line with our ideology later regarding Department of Justice overreach... Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: ZuWo on March 15, 2012, 11:22:46 AM ZuWo- thank you for your comments and I want to tell you that I agree with every comment you have made and I will strongly oppose the bill I put forward. I put the bill forward because ZuWo had asked a Senator to and I saw no bill had been proposed since February... so I stepped up and put it on the docket. I told the President that I will be opposing it- however I believe we need to debate SOMETHING... I will be submitting a bill more in line with our ideology later regarding Department of Justice overreach... I know you oppose this bill, you made that very clear. When I asked "Do you really expect ...?" in my post I did not adress you, it was merely a rhetorical question. Sorry if I didn't phrase that clear enough! The only reason why I posted in your thread was that I wanted to use this opportunity to say why I am against the bill as well. ;) Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 27, 2012, 10:53:56 PM Update
I would like to commend a few people- Polnut, 20RP12, Scott, NC Yankee- I am sure there are more but these people in particular I would like to commend for being very active in their roles even though I may disagree with especially Ponut and Scott on the issues. I look forward to upcoming debates on the President's unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, education policy, national radio policy, and Department of Justice overreach. clarence Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 25, 2012, 08:57:11 PM The office is still open! I have three comments I'd like to make...
First, I urge my every one to take a look at the legislation I've proposed- Quote The Less Than HONORable Service Preclusion of Benefits Act 1- This act may be known as the HONOR Act 2- Atlasians who receive either an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge or a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) from the military hereby forfeit all VA benefits, or other benefits provided to veterans by the federal government 3- A clause indicating such must be present on the enlistment document and acknowledged by the enlistee with his or her signature As a veteran, I sincerely appreciated President Polnut's commitment to veterans issues and hope it continues in the future with our next President- but we all know we need to get our national finances in order, and I want to be prepared for veterans issues to be placed on the table along with everything else... We must be prepared to give the world to those who serve or have served in our armed services, but we must also expect the world from these fine men and women. Currently- any service member who receives a dishonorable discharge forfeits his or her right to any benefits. I am proposing to extend that to the types of discharges mentioned above... The American Legion, VFW, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, and all national veterans organizations preclude members who received anything other then an Honorable Discharge. While I agree with the principle, I believe those who received a General Discharge should remain eligible for benefits. When our resources are dwindling, we must focus the gratitude of our nation to those who served most honorably and that is the intention behind this bill Second- I'd like to comment on the formation of another regional party in the Mideast by Vice President Tmthforu94... while I respect him and the party members, I hope we don't see too many regional parties. Political parties ought to be ideological- and forming parties to improve a region I don't believe can often work. Of course- the South has always been far more independent then other regions of the country, but even considering this- if I believe in lower tax rates, I should join a conservative party and push that issue nationwide and in the IDS as well. What's next- a party for the Northeast and the Pacific and the Midwest??? Then we spend our national elections voting in folks from our regions? Let's be careful with this... Third- I find the current court case between Young Tweed and the Elections Department very interesting... I'm not sure of the constitutional facts here but I want to make it clear that I believe Napoleon won the election and the will of the voters ought to be respected If any one would like to talk with me about legislation, European travel, or overweight women- please message me Best, clarence At-Large Senator Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 25, 2012, 09:08:59 PM That is a well written bill regarding military matters and I can say as a son and brother of veterans as far back as the Revolution you have my support.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Napoleon on June 25, 2012, 09:17:32 PM I agree with all of this...but the CPR isn't trying to project power at the federal level, we are united reformists working to better the regional government.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 25, 2012, 09:20:39 PM I agree with all of this...but the CPR isn't trying to project power at the federal level, we are united reformists working to better the regional government. Well said. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on June 25, 2012, 10:11:27 PM Always happy to see constructive and well-thought-out foreign policy/military legislation; makes my job a lot easier, not to mention much more enjoyable :)
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 25, 2012, 10:15:04 PM Always happy to see constructive and well-thought-out foreign policy/military legislation; makes my job a lot easier, not to mention much more enjoyable :) Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 25, 2012, 10:52:18 PM That is a well written bill regarding military matters and I can say as a son and brother of veterans as far back as the Revolution you have my support. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 27, 2012, 11:17:18 PM For those who have not seen- my education tax credit bill which passed the Senate but was vetoed was unable to get the votes necessary to override that veto. I am glad that the Senate had a discussion about it, but one point sticks in my craw...
The goal of government is to hand as much power as possible directly to the citizens. Much of the rhetoric around that bill involved either "this inflicts regional rights" or "we need to promote the public school system instead of weakening it." Tell that to the parent whose child attends an overcrowded, low-ranked school because he or she can't afford to send that child to a private school which may well provide a better education and local regulations ban that child from attending a school outside of their zone. I sent my kids to private school for this reason The public school system is there to educate children- and that must be our most important goal! Education children comes before strengthening the public school system... as I mentioned in the White House- these goals often go hand in hand, but when they do not we MUST side with the students and parents. And for all this talk about finding ways to strengthen the public school system- I've yet seen a bill which aims to do that in my tenure in the Senate... except my own which would decrease the burden on the public school system and allow more focus- both time and financially- on each individual pupil You can be sure that I will continue to advocate for the rights of students and parents to have access to the best education available... Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 12:07:43 AM Also, many of conscience and faith don't trust what's being taught in the public schools. It was rather dissapointing that Senator Ben, after supporting the bill before Polnut vetoed it voted against overriding the veto. They chose to keep for their friends in the teacher's unions and take from the families of faith and conscience.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on June 28, 2012, 07:03:39 AM Also, many of conscience and faith don't trust what's being taught in the public schools. If you make the Assembly this cycle, couldn't you introduce a bill removing those issues (what are they?) from being taught? Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 08:37:33 AM Also, many of conscience and faith don't trust what's being taught in the public schools. If you make the Assembly this cycle, couldn't you introduce a bill removing those issues (what are they?) from being taught? A tax credit for Mideast residents who homeschool or send their kids to private is something I would like to make a legislative priority. I'm also working on bill strictly dealing with human trafficking. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on June 28, 2012, 08:47:41 AM Also, many of conscience and faith don't trust what's being taught in the public schools. If you make the Assembly this cycle, couldn't you introduce a bill removing those issues (what are they?) from being taught? A tax credit for Mideast residents who homeschool or send their kids to private is something I would like to make a legislative priority. I'm also working on bill strictly dealing with human trafficking. What are the issues you (and/or 'many of conscience and faith') don't trust? I'm trying to make educational reform a major part of my tenure in the IDS Legislature. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 09:58:31 AM We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on June 28, 2012, 10:28:15 AM We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit. Are you going all "Teach The Controversy"? Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 28, 2012, 04:32:03 PM I've just introduced the Power to Parents Act which continues my advocacy of giving power directly to the people- in this case to parents to determine what is best for their children...
Quote Power to Parents Act 1- Parents or legal guardians may choose to send their child to any public school within their school district of residence -”School district” refers to the governing area of a particular board, government, or administration established to operate K-12 education 2- Families may apply to the school district for financial assistance for the purposes of transportation of the student to and from school 3- To fund this financial assistance $1,000,000,000 will be allocated to the regions proximate to population, to then be allocated to school districts by the same criterion -This spending will be placed under the line item “School Choice Transportation Assistance” 4- The funding for this line item will be come from the Go Green Fund line item in the White House budget I understand the Northeast may have already had a similar law- I support the idea of increasing school choice in any manner. This bill does not seek to replace the public school system, but to give parents and students choice within that system. If a student is zoned for a poor-performing school, that student and his or her parents has the right to attend a different school which is higher performing. The problem here is that the alternate school may be distant from the family's home- which is why I am providing transportation assistance to needy families to be able to afford to bring their children to and from school. Alternatively, there could be grants for school districts to expand school bus routes- but this method seemed more straightforward. I've taken the funding for the transportation assistance from what appears to be a bloated line item in Polnut's budget proposal I am hopeful that this legislation addresses the concerns my colleagues had that my previous legislation attempted to gut the public school system Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on June 28, 2012, 04:33:36 PM I'm doing the same thing in the IDS except without the financial assistance. I should probably add that in...
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Yelnoc on June 28, 2012, 05:14:09 PM Erm...don't you guys think this will lead to the school perceived as the "best" becoming over crowded and the schools perceived as the "worst" emptying out? Only children fortunate enough to be able to provide their own transportation could go to the "best" district school while children reliant on busing would be stuck in the school they are districted to, regardless of its quality. This could very easily become an issue of class.
We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 28, 2012, 05:18:24 PM Erm...don't you guys think this will lead to the school perceived as the "best" becoming over crowded and the schools perceived as the "worst" emptying out? Only children fortunate enough to be able to provide their own transportation could go to the "best" district school while children reliant on busing would be stuck in the school they are districted to, regardless of its quality. This could very easily become an issue of class. We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Yelnoc on June 28, 2012, 05:32:18 PM Erm...don't you guys think this will lead to the school perceived as the "best" becoming over crowded and the schools perceived as the "worst" emptying out? Only children fortunate enough to be able to provide their own transportation could go to the "best" district school while children reliant on busing would be stuck in the school they are districted to, regardless of its quality. This could very easily become an issue of class. We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit. But that would be difficult to work out. Busses would have to work long, meandering routes, cavnassing entire counties for students. Imagine Bus from School A has to go down Baker Street to pick up Johnny who doesn't like School B, which he was districted into. The Bus from School B also has to go down Baker Street to pick up the kids content with its school...we're seriously over complicating busing. Not to mention the extra money which would need to be allotted for the extra miles driven several times every day. And yes, schools are allocated money based on the projection population size. This bill, however, would cause one or two schools to see their population swell dramatically, probably enough to require campus expansion...while other schools in the county sit nearly empty. New teachers would need to be hired, and where better to hire them from then the empty schools? Perhaps this bill would not serve to make school districts any better, but instead consolidate the number of schools into mega-schools. In my real life county in the Atlanta Metro Area, you would likely end up with three schools, each with 7,000 students, minimum. All of this done at great expense to the federal government (which I understand would be paying for the restructuring rather than local governments) for dubious gain. I appreciate what you're attempting to do with this bill Clarence, and I would certainly like to see this conversation carried out in the senate, but as a real life high school student I fear the unintended consequences this would have in our imaginary world. ;) We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit. But why shouldn't it be? I say this doubting that JCL would appreciate the curriculum that a secularist like me would introduce. But excluding religion from the purview of public education merely because it is a controversial subject is foolish. Why ignore a significant part of the human experience, a part that is essential to understanding our history, culture, and behavior? (Yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with JCL's point.) Religion should be taught in a historical context in history class, not in Science classrooms as fact. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Averroës Nix on June 28, 2012, 05:44:28 PM You know very well I meant proselytize :P Honestly - I didn't. But I'm glad to hear that we're in agreement. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 08:31:13 PM But evolution is not fact and shouldn't be taught as such. What I'm saying is that the various views of our beginnings should be taught and debated in our classrooms much like the issue over prayer in school is.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on June 28, 2012, 08:38:27 PM JCL, are you familiar with Project Steve?
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 08:49:45 PM JCL, are you familiar with Project Steve? Goes to show that even the scientific community is divided. The evolution side may have a 1% edge but we have Ron and Rand Paul. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Yelnoc on June 28, 2012, 08:54:52 PM But evolution is not fact and shouldn't be taught as such. What I'm saying is that the various views of our beginnings should be taught and debated in our classrooms much like the issue over prayer in school is. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 09:07:13 PM But evolution is not fact and shouldn't be taught as such. What I'm saying is that the various views of our beginnings should be taught and debated in our classrooms much like the issue over prayer in school is. But I'm not the only that airs personal politics. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on June 28, 2012, 09:18:31 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 09:29:00 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. I totally understand that. What I'm advocating is competition of view. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 28, 2012, 09:38:09 PM What's the scientific basis for teaching creationism on par with evolution?
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 28, 2012, 09:52:24 PM I'd appreciate if the discussion on theology could go somewhere else... JCL, Yelnoc, Pres- I'm looking at you ;-)
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 28, 2012, 09:54:24 PM I'd appreciate if the discussion on theology could go somewhere else... JCL, Yelnoc, Pres- I'm looking at you ;-) I honestly don't care enough to bother continuing shouting at a brick wall. Apologies Senator. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 28, 2012, 09:56:52 PM What's the scientific basis for teaching creationism on par with evolution? I will yield to the Senator's wishes but President Polnut does bring up a good question that I will answer elsewhere. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: memphis on June 28, 2012, 11:39:42 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: bgwah on June 28, 2012, 11:43:11 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. memphis is postin' in atlasia? :o Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 29, 2012, 12:00:32 AM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. No, they're getting the sex issues dealt with, especially regarding renegade(ones messing with kids) priests though a bit late. If they, and many other Christian sects want to stay conservative on this, let them. Look at the Islamic world, they are having kids at the rate many western Christians once did and at some point may out populate the Christian world. That is something I don't want. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Mechaman on June 29, 2012, 10:01:35 AM I'm sorry, but how are we supposed to be swayed towards the belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago?
Also, the technical definition of Evolution doesn't exactly forbid the existence of a God. Just saying. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Yelnoc on June 29, 2012, 12:49:13 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. No, they're getting the sex issues dealt with, especially regarding renegade(ones messing with kids) priests though a bit late. If they, and many other Christian sects want to stay conservative on this, let them. Look at the Islamic world, they are having kids at the rate many western Christians once did and at some point may out populate the Christian world. That is something I don't want. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 29, 2012, 02:46:46 PM Some actually do. I don't except in the aspects of human and civil liberty.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on June 29, 2012, 04:48:04 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. There's a difference between stepping back and looking at the scientific evidence, and merely saying "Well, people think it's right, so we gotta change!" What would be the point of a religion existing, especially one such as the Church where reliance on the past 2000 years of tradition is so important, if it merely were to reverse its stance on an issue once a certain side of it became popular. Would there be any reason to even be part of it if it continually moved--not just adjusted or re-evaluated, but shifted entirely--with the times? On a side note, I'm wondering what your religious views are, and why the stance of a certain Church is that much of an issue for you. Lastly, an apology to clarence for this debate dragging on so long inside your thread. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on June 29, 2012, 05:43:35 PM I want to interject about something other than teaching the Bible in schools.
I admire your idea to allow parents to enroll their children in any public school within their district. I'd caution, though, that this could be made to displace local students from nearby schools. What happens if people from the far end of the district fill up the closest school to a child living below the poverty line. I understand that providing the child with transportation to get to his school is an option, but it kind of flies in the face of giving parents a choice--what if they don't want their kids to take the bus? Moreover, that transportation becomes a big state expense. I'd suggest making two enrollment periods. Give local students first priority to their nearest schools: "Yes, I want my child to go to his regular school," or "No, I will not be enrolling my student in his regular school." Once that window has closed, give the parents carte blanche. I think that will reduce some of the problems that unbridled school choice would create. It's what I fought for in the IDS. Parents get a choice, but kids who need to go to their home school won't be displaced. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: memphis on June 29, 2012, 08:52:32 PM Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such. No, they're getting the sex issues dealt with, especially regarding renegade(ones messing with kids) priests though a bit late. If they, and many other Christian sects want to stay conservative on this, let them. Look at the Islamic world, they are having kids at the rate many western Christians once did and at some point may out populate the Christian world. That is something I don't want. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 03, 2012, 02:40:19 PM I am honored to have received high approval ratings from the recent poll...
Approve - Senator Clarence (W-FL) 21 (16.8%) Disapprove - Senator Clarence (W-FL) 5 (4%) I will continue to represent to the best of my ability and be an active and respectful Senator and earn the trust you've placed in me by your election and your approval Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 05, 2012, 08:36:43 AM Folks- I'll be away most all this next week...I volunteer every year to assist with a program thru the Legion which many of the young men on here have attended recently. I likely won't have access to the web starting tomorrow....so I will "see" you in a week!
Best, clarence Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: ZuWo on July 05, 2012, 09:37:26 AM Enjoy your week and have fun!
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 07, 2012, 09:23:40 AM For future reference, it might be advisable to put such a notice in a separate thread titled "Leave of Absence". There has never been any situation to define what counts as an office leave of absence and what does not and I would hate to lose you because someone strikes gold in a court case. ;)
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 18, 2012, 05:39:32 PM Senator Clarence on Attack on Israeli Tourists
"I offer my condolences to the families and friends of those murdered today in Bulgaria and will keep those recovering from their injuries in my prayers. It is a sad reflection on our world today that Jews still are not safe from hate and terror... I don't know who is behind these attacks but urge the Napoleon Administration to cooperate with the Israelis and our other allies to find out and bring them to swift justice. If Iran is found to be behind these attacks- I urge President Napoleon to stand alongside our ally Israel as they respond in whatever manner they see fit to this act of war." Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 19, 2012, 12:48:11 AM Senator Clarence on Attack on Israeli Tourists "I offer my condolences to the families and friends of those murdered today in Bulgaria and will keep those recovering from their injuries in my prayers. It is a sad reflection on our world today that Jews still are not safe from hate and terror... I don't know who is behind these attacks but urge the Napoleon Administration to cooperate with the Israelis and our other allies to find out and bring them to swift justice. If Iran is found to be behind these attacks- I urge President Napoleon to stand alongside our ally Israel as they respond in whatever manner they see fit to this act of war." Well said Senator Clarence. I fully concur. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 22, 2012, 09:12:45 PM I have written an open letter to President Napoleon regarding my upcoming resolution authorizing the use of force against Iran- this letter is below...
Quote Mr. President- I'll begin by telling you what you may already know- despite my reputation on this board as a “hawk” it is not easy for me to advocate for or encourage military conflict. As a veteran of a war which many saw as lacking basis- even many of us who served- and as some one who never knew my father as he died of wounds before I could walk or talk... I understand that decisions involving the use of military force and the placement of our brave service members in harm's way must be made knowing that our choice could deprive children of a mother or father, make a widow or widower, or force a parent to bury their child. It is with having witnessed the tragedy of war that I write this open letter to inform you and Atlasia that I will be submitting a resolution to authorize the use of force against the Islamic Republic of Iran and I urge you to initiate military action against its government as soon as possible... Iran must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Some will say it is their right as a sovereign nation to do so as it is in their self interest- I say it is our right to act as we see fit considering we are a sovereign nation as well. Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon would place our nation and our allies at existential risk for reasons I will outline... and upon obtaining their first nuclear weapon- we will be deterred from attacking to avoid destruction. This is why we must attack now- we will not risk the loss of one of our cities to attack them later when Iran performs increasingly heinous acts about the Earth Iran has countless committed acts of war and threatened to commit others... they have committed many of the acts of war via their proxy- Hezbollah- which they fund and direct and which is responsible for the recent horrific attack on Israelis and Bulgarians in Bulgaria- this is an act of war along with the hundreds of other attacks against civilians and military alike done under the banner of Hezbollah. Iran planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to our own nation which was thwarted by intelligence. Iran is a theocracy which terrorizes its own people- such as hanging homosexuals simply for their sexual orientation. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz which would result in a global economic shock. Iranian leaders have threatened to wipe Israel off the map and have conducted military exercises to enhance their capability to eradicate any military base of ours they can reach. Why would we ever take such a nation at their word that their nuclear development is for peaceful purposes? The answer is- we cannot. Every day Iran moves forward with its nuclear program is a day closer to the point of no return- a point at which Iran becomes our military equal and conflict with them involves millions of lives lost on our side as opposed to thousands. Mr. President- our military exists for a reason and that reason is to prevail in combat should the need arise. I believe the Iranian threat justifies the use of military force. I leave it to you and your military advisors and commanders to determine the course of action- but implore you to eliminate the Iranian regime's ability to wage war before it is too late. Why would we let the world' s most dangerous regime obtain the world's most dangerous weapon? Tomorrow- I will be submitting a resolution to authorize you to use force against the Iranian regime. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in this endeavor to preserve the security of our nation and our allies Regards, clarence At-Large Senator Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Donerail on July 22, 2012, 10:20:30 PM Uh... they've already got them (it's why when I was SoEA we strengthened ties with our Arab allies.and attempted to do the same with Israel).
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 22, 2012, 10:22:23 PM Uh... they've already got them (it's why when I was SoEA we strengthened ties with our Arab allies.and attempted to do the same with Israel). Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 23, 2012, 09:10:26 PM I have now submitted the resolution authorizing the President to initiate military action against Iran...
Quote Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iran Resolution Whereas- Iran has committed acts of war against our nation such as the taking of hostages Whereas- Iran has conducted and publicly announced military exercises to simulate and enhance their ability to strike Atlasian military bases in the region Whereas- Iran has repeatedly threatened acts of war such as closing the Strait of Hormuz and has repeatedly threatened our allies especially Israel Whereas- Iran is universally recognized as a state sponsor of terror and has been identified as the primary state collaborator of the terrorist organization Hezbollah Whereas- Iran has attempted to assassinate diplomatic officials to Atlasia Whereas- Iran lied to the world community regarding its intentions for uranium enrichment, pledging peaceful intentions and later announcing the successful development of a nuclear weapon Whereas- the world community and Atlasia in particular has no reason to trust the Iranian regime Be it resolved- the Senate gives the President full authority to initiate and direct military operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 24, 2012, 12:34:13 AM Senator Clarence on Equal Rights Amendment
I've seen the ERA proposed by Senator Scott that will soon be before the Senate... I stand opposed to the ERA in its present form for the following reasons which I will also express in the Senate- 1- ERA places a blanket ban on any organization which discriminates membership based on sex. Now you may see discriminate as a bad word as we should... but should the Boys Scouts and Girls Scouts be integrated? What about Boys State and Girls State or the YMCA or fraternities and sororities in schools? I couldn't stand for the Moose or the Masons being forced to admit women. I don't believe these organizations are discriminatory or sexist and should not be penalized or forced to change their membership policies 2- ERA would render women eligible for the draft and for placement in combat arms occupations in the military. Both of these are unacceptable to me and unless an exception is made for this- the ERA will never have my support or the support of most women I know... 3- ERA does not address the issue of transgenders but may include them. I am proud to stand for gay rights but believe it is clear that a transgender is choosing to dress or act as the opposite sex or receive a sex change operation. Being a homosexual may not be a personal choice... being a transgender clearly is and I can not stand for allowing men dressed as women being permitted to use the women's restroom- if restrooms are still divided by sex under the ERA These concerns and many others are the reasons why ERA has failed time and time again... such a blanket law is well-intentioned and I suport the sponsor's intent but the ERA is not the way to go about it. If these concerns are not addressed thru amendments I will propose to the legislation- I will not support the legislation Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 24, 2012, 12:45:28 AM 1. I might be wrong, but I believe that most discriminatory practices on gender equality are already prohibited by law, and therefore, all appropriate organizations are exempted from those laws under appropriate circumstances. Nevertheless, I am willing to write in exceptions for gender groups that don't stand for sexism.
2. I'm actually not very comfortable with gender exceptions on drafting. Of course, I am vehemently opposed to drafts under any circumstances, but I think women that were to be drafted would likely end up working in positions that have limited (if any) combat involved. However, if this becomes an issue, I will write a provision into the amendment to fix this. 3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females. President Napoleon, as the author of this amendment, your input would be appreciated. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on July 24, 2012, 02:45:31 AM 3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females. What set of people do you mean by 'transgendered males'? My opinion of the language usage and of the current law is unformed until this is cleared up. To Senator Clarence, dressing as such-and-such (gender expression or performativity for people who are hip to the lingo) can certainly be argued to be choices, but the feelings and perceptions that underlie this aren't, so it's a matter of how one is to deal with where what isn't a choice becomes what, arguably, is. It's similar to the distinction between homosexual inclinations and homosexual actions that for example the Roman Catholic Church makes. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 24, 2012, 03:02:21 AM 3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females. What set of people do you mean by 'transgendered males'? My opinion of the language usage and of the current law is unformed until this is cleared up. To Senator Clarence, dressing as such-and-such (gender expression or performativity for people who are hip to the lingo) can certainly be argued to be choices, but the feelings and perceptions that underlie this aren't, so it's a matter of how one is to deal with where what isn't a choice becomes what, arguably, is. It's similar to the distinction between homosexual inclinations and homosexual actions that for example the Roman Catholic Church makes. Sorry for not making that clear- I was referring to men whose gender identities conform to those of females and presumed that men which are in that demographic are required to use men's restrooms and that this wouldn't be affected by the amendment. Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on July 24, 2012, 03:55:31 PM 3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females. What set of people do you mean by 'transgendered males'? My opinion of the language usage and of the current law is unformed until this is cleared up. To Senator Clarence, dressing as such-and-such (gender expression or performativity for people who are hip to the lingo) can certainly be argued to be choices, but the feelings and perceptions that underlie this aren't, so it's a matter of how one is to deal with where what isn't a choice becomes what, arguably, is. It's similar to the distinction between homosexual inclinations and homosexual actions that for example the Roman Catholic Church makes. Sorry for not making that clear- I was referring to men whose gender identities conform to those of females and presumed that men which are in that demographic are required to use men's restrooms and that this wouldn't be affected by the amendment. I'd recommend using 'male-to-female transgendered people', which is considerably less confusing, in the future. (For the record, if that is the current state of the law, I oppose it, but I doubt this Senate will change it.) Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 31, 2012, 12:58:42 PM Senator Clarence on National Security Committee
"Seems I've lost out on my bid to serve on the Senate's new National Security Committee but I am very pleased with the committee's membership... one of the members is Redalgo who I have very much enjoyed working with in the Senate and the other two described their views as "similar to Clarence's" so I am confident these views will be represented. I will continue to be vocal on national security issues...." On Power to Parents Act "Despite SEnator Redalgo's declaration that he can no longer support the bill- I believe we can still achieve a coalition to override a potential veto and hopefully work with the President to acheive a compromise. I am going to continue debate and discussion with leaders such as TJ and Scott to end up with a bill that does the most good while still being able to be passed and signed" On Re-election "I will announce my plans for the next Senate At Large Election by Friday" Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on September 06, 2012, 03:17:10 PM Senator Clarence on Recent Abstentions
I've had a very busy personal life and have missed the debates on many of the bills.... If I do not participate in the debate on a bill, I will abstain. It is unfair to the author of the bill who worked very hard to bring it to the floor if I make a judgment without having paid due attention during the debate Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 06, 2012, 03:41:49 PM While this is obviously your priority, I don't think you need to abstain just because you didn't participate in the debate. As long as you read the bill over I think it's perfectly acceptable to vote.
Title: Re: Office of Senator Clarence Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 10:42:55 PM Yea, I don't think it reasonable to expect every Senator to contribute to every single debate on every bill and as such we would have a lot of abstentions, wouldn't we? ;) On some bills there just isn't that much contention, whereas on others, the valid points might have already been resolved and thus there is no room for more debate. In those cases, just read over the entire debate and make a decision regarding your own opinions of the underlying matter, whether all the concerns are dealt with and then vote accordingly.
|